heartbeat

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool returns role and inbox and forces a fresh read. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or safety, but the action is inherently safe and non-destructive. A 3 is appropriate given the absence of annotations and the tool's simplicity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the key action and result, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (though not shown), and the description mentions the return values (role + inbox), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the tool is idempotent or safe, but overall it suffices.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's action and what it returns (role + inbox), which is valuable beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'pump' and the resource 'heartbeat', and explains that it returns 'role + inbox'. It distinguishes itself by noting the background thread does this automatically, so calling it forces a fresh read. No sibling tool has a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to call it: 'to force a fresh read'. It implies the alternative is to wait for the background thread. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide a comparative list of alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.